Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: next_freq need update when cpufreq_limits changed

[Ingo Molnar]

* Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> When cpufreq's policy is single, there is a scenario that will
> cause sg_policy's next_freq to be unable to update.
> 
> When the cpu's util is always max, the cpufreq will be max,
> and then if we change the policy's scaling_max_freq to be a
> lower freq, indeed, the sg_policy's next_freq need change to
> be the lower freq, however, because the cpu_is_busy, the next_freq
> would keep the max_freq.
> 
> For example:
> The cpu7 is single cpu:
> 
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # while true;do done&
> [1] 4737
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # taskset -p 80 4737
> pid 4737's current affinity mask: ff
> pid 4737's new affinity mask: 80
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> 2301000
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_cur_freq
> 2301000
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # echo 2171000 > scaling_max_freq
> unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> 2171000
> 
> At this time, the sg_policy's next_freq would keep 2301000.
> 
> To prevent the case happen, add the judgment of the need_freq_update flag.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 4492608b7d7f..458d359f5991 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -350,7 +350,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>  	 * Except when the rq is capped by uclamp_max.
>  	 */
>  	if (!uclamp_rq_is_capped(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) &&
> -	    sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
> +	    sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq &&
> +	    !sg_policy->need_freq_update) {
>  		next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
>  
>  		/* Restore cached freq as next_freq has changed */

Just wondering about the status of this fix - is it pending in
some tree, or should we apply it to the scheduler tree?

Thanks,

	Ingo